In the Slick Stream of Giants

Our world is obsessed with progress, and its easy to see why. I love progress too, its exciting and promises a better life. I'd love that new tablet that cool looking tablet that's coming out in three years, my current one is now inadequate by the very expectation of the shiny new one. I seem to forget that one day I will end my love affair with that new tablet, as I have done with my current one. But it's okay, technology doesn't hate me for it, and the industry rubs its hands in delight. When I look back at my intense excitement for a laptop with a full 64MB of RAM, I am reminded by the futility of this circle of desire. But unless it stops you ever being content as it can do, it's actually one of the better aspects of capitalist consumerism. Nothing else can drive progress to such a degree. With that obvious exception of the vicious circle of discontent, progress is still great. We are born into a world with a certain level of technology: this is our baseline minimum. The newborn don't appreciate the progress of history, only what they can perceive from their baseline. If progress stopped, we would become restless and bored by the lack of it.

Occasionally though we can break the cycle. Because there is only desire for the latest and the greatest, yesterdays technology can be produced very cheaply. For example the Raspberry Pi, with only a 700MHz processor and 256MB of ram, its quite pitiful compared even to my humble desktop. However, at only £16 (or £22 for a slightly better one) it is a bargain for something that would have been considered a supercomputer compared to my first laptop. So paradoxically, the way to be rewarded by consumerism, is to defy it.

Happiness is?

Personal happiness, its something I've never been able to grasp properly, only fleetingly like a handful of sand. Sometimes I just can't seem to be happy, then for no reason at all my whole outlook changes. Maybe if I went to some medical professional I'd be diagnosed with bipolar or some depressive disorder. As you can probably tell, I'm constantly trying to work it out. Usually I put it down to myself being a sceptic, as a (feeble) mathematician and scientist I tend to over critically assess everything. Despite all my attempted rational thinking, I still fall short of a complete understanding or realisation of happiness. This to me seems like a paradox, why isn't the logically correct and true way the happiest? There are a two possibilities, either happiness requires irrationally or I've got rationality all wrong.

Despite my Christian upbringing, my way of thinking is more readily identifiable with a sceptical atheist, critically assessing anything and everything, generally being a sarcastic smart-arse. This way of thinking is based on the idea that proof is required for everything, therefore the supernatural is just a silly notion that should be dismissed without evidence and emotion is just a mental construct of which I have no time for. But this is where my reasoning first begins to chase its tail. Most of the things I do are concerned with being happy, I like warmth and food because my brain tells me I like it and it makes me happy. I enjoy knowledge and critically being sarcastic because my brain says I like it. And there it is, my basis for dismissing emotion is based on emotion. Last time I checked, that counted as a major logical flaw. Should I then reject emotion completely for no reason? Well I guess I could try, but its something I find difficult to imagine ever being able to do. What purpose would it achieve? And there's another flaw, my reasoning is becoming holier than the pope and all I'm trying to do is grasp it. Why do I talk of purpose? Surely there is no purpose to life, I see no evidence for it, we are just arrangements of atoms. A quote from wachmen sums it up "A live human body and a deceased human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference." But yet, this ever present, seemingly illogical sense persuades me that happiness is paramount and purpose is important. To fight it would be pointless, as I have shown, the feeling is either illogical and there is no point to anything (pointless) or there's something more and to fight it is just kicking against the goads.

Despite being stuck between the two ways of thinking, they nicely come to a similar conclusion: that I should be concerned with my own happiness and purpose should not be dismissed so readily. So that's where I'm currently up to, my main motivation is happiness, but I still haven't answered my early question of how I can be happy. So I haven't really got anywhere...

The True Pain of Sin

Too often we throw around the word sin, like its a small discrepency that just needs improving on, as if we were a machine not quite running at maximum efficency. We become beaurocrats, writing our well phrased sorrys to God and to others, like a corporate responsability form. Too often we forget the gravity of what we do. Our relationship with God should be like the relationship with our partners, time and time again in the bible it is compared, the church is the bride of christ etc.

We have faith in God that he will save us and care for us in this life, and in return he has faith in us that we will obey his commands. When we sin we break that bond of trust, just like when we break our promises to our partners. It breaks his heart when we sin, and so often we just brush it off because of God's mercy. But it should break our heart too, just like we try to repair our relationships with humility and guilt. God is the perfect partner, slow to anger and never breaking his promises. If then he's done nothing wrong, how much more then should we, steamy eyed, walk to his from door and beg forgiveness? 

Cultspotting

From a young age I have been interested in human behaviour, and the way it seems to endlessly perplex me. Cults are particularly facinating, especially how people in them can become so detatched from our world and refuse rational logic. It is a subject I have some degree of personal experience in, which you may guess from the tone of this essay. Understandably I won't identify people, and talk only in general terms. I am not just writing this randomly, I did plan to write it for my epq which is basically just a really long essay for an AS level. Without further ado I will begin.

Cults feature surprisingly frequently in the news, despite their almost inherent secrecy and closed nature. This is mostly due to the behaviour of their members, which appears to us as completely uncomprehensible. However, once we understand a few things about the mindset, we can finally understand why. First we must define what a cult is. A quick search on google sums it up well
1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

The definition suggests the definition for cults is quite relative, ie people who just hold different views to ours. However, usually a cult is a group who's views don't stand to reason, or they refuse to even discuss it. Cults tend to believe things that appear stupidly bizzare to us and it's a wonder that anyone can accept it. Often the word brainwashing is thrown around, and images of strange military experiments spring to mind. Unfortunately in cults it is rarely so overt, mostly due to the fact the members and leadership genuinely believe that worldview.

How does the brainwashing happen? Cult members are almost always open minded but most of all, not rationally critical of new ideas. If a prospective member spends enough time around people who believe the crazy views, they will begin to accept it. Only the most rigidly stuborn and critical people will not yield to the views that surround them all the time. An analogy can be seen in the world around, we more frequently yield to popular opinion than we would like to admit. With cults there is more to it however, as their members are often exposed to the more mainstream view too. So how do they choose the more irrational view over the mainstream view?

Almost always a cult is headed or was originally headed by a single, usually eccentric man (I will for simplicity presume it is always a male head, although of course it is not always). The man usually fits into a specific archetype, giving the appearance of knowing all but still remaining elusive. This serves many purposes, firstly it means his answers aren't automatically questioned because they are hard to define and secondly because it means people have to keep going back to him for more answers. A valid question at this point would be: how does someone ever get to be in this position of intellectual veneration? As with most human behaviour it's a gradual thing, the 'go to' guy for one person quickly becomes the go to guy for everyone. I'm sure you've noticed this behaviour before, particularly when you were younger, there were always those groups where one person was practically worshiped. I guess its a similar mechanic. Another possible reason would be if someone just attracts only the kind of person you could describe as sheep or natural followers.

How does a cult then maintain its members? Surely the small amount of doubt would build up? This is where it gets interesting, and from personal experience I have noticed several mechanics going on. One links back to the mans illusive nature. If someone gives illusive answers, it means the person has to project their own meaning on it. For example the man may say indirectly suggest that a certain practice is bad (for whatever reason). From what the person does he can judge their attitude and more effective control them (consciously or subconsciously). Furthermore, he can later contradict himself without actually making himself seem unreliable, the person then blames themselves for their obvious incorrect interpretation. This serves to bring people into line as it makes the person feel guilty. Also it makes the person further doubt their own judgement, and instead rely on his.

Another method used is fear. Cults tend to demonise their enemies (example Scientology and psychiatry), which weakens their arguments and draws them closer to the protection of the cult. Secondly and something which is almost the acid test of a cult is ex-communication. The threat of ex-communication in a cult is a scary one for many reasons. Firstly you'd no longer be in the group of people that are constantly portrayed as right, implying you would be wrong. The implications of this are usually magnified by religious ideas, eg only the cult will go to heaven. The other thing is the self contained nature of cults means that a member's whole world is contained with it, to leave would be a catastrophic event for them. It's like for us to loose all our friends and lifestyle all at once. This leads me full circle back to the definition; the danger in cults is that someone can get so trapped in it that they will put up with atrocities and obvious injustices. Which paradoxically leads me to define a dangerous cult (one you should get out of) as one you can't get out of.